These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
I wonder what you all think of the latest articles in The Economist on the Anthropocene, and whether this might count as a conceptual revolution, spurring new problems (presumably in geoengineering) for our species to solve. Here's the online article, a bit different from the paper one but same point: http://www.economist.com/node/18741749 -----Original Message----- From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Tony Whitson Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 1:07 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: Re: [xmca] Units of Scientiic Achievement Let me clarify that I'm not dismissing evolutionary models of change in scientific disciplines. Stephen Toulmin's (1972) _Human Understanding: The Collective Use and Evolution of Concepts_ has a great deal to recommend it. I just wanted challenge an image species differentiation that seems to suggest too much distance among distinctive species. On the molecular level, I think we have more in common with yeast cells than the sciences in our time have with some pre-revolutionary "sciences." On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Tony Whitson wrote: > Andy, I don't think the analogy with evolution of biological species can > really work. > > There is tremendous kinship between us and chimps; and the commonalities > among us, chimps and our common ancestors is unlike any commonality that you > could point to between Ptolomaic and Copernican astronomy, or "chemistry" > pre/post oxygenation, etc. > > On Tue, 21 Jun 2011, Andy Blunden wrote: > >> But the metaphor Michael is calling on, Carol, as I see it is "normal >> science" is the incremental, gradual adaptation of a species to its niche, >> and remaining much the same for millions of years, and on the other hand, >> when a species is under real pressure, you get exactly the process Kuhn >> describes in science: rapid diversification and die-outs, with a >> distinctly new species species emerging at the end. It's called >> "punctuated evolutuion" isn't it? >> >> I find the idea of a formation perfecting itself into extinction >> attractive. >> As to "Intelligent design" - this has nothing to do with proof or >> disproof, Carol, but Faith. >> >> Andy > __________________________________________ > _____ > xmca mailing list > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca __________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca __________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca